A Multicenter Retrospective Study of Avelumab First-Line Maintenance and Subsequent Therapies for Locally Advanced and Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma: Subgroup Analysis of First-Line Dose-Dense Methotrexate, Vinblastine, Doxorubicin, and Cisplatin, and Gemcitabine Plus Cisplatin in the Japan AVElumab MAintenance and Continuous Treatment Study (JAVEMACS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Avelumab maintenance therapy is approved in Japan for patients with aUC without progression after PBC. This report presents subgroup analysis data from the JAVEMACS chart review of avelumab maintenance in patients who received 1L ddMVAC and GC. This retrospective study reviewed medical charts of patients with aUC (February 2021–December 2023). Overall, 350 patients (ddMVAC, n = 32 and GC, n = 196) were included in the study. Baseline characteristics were balanced between the two PBC groups. Median duration from PBC start to avelumab start was 13.2 and 21.1 weeks; median overall survival (OS) was not reached (both groups), progression-free survival (PFS) was 12.0 and 7.4 months, and PFS2 was 27.6 and 21.3 months for the ddMVAC and GC groups, respectively. At data cutoff (June 2024), 25.0% of patients in the ddMVAC and 17.3% in the GC groups were ongoing avelumab treatment. Second-line treatments included EV (64.3% ddMVAC; 64.5% GC), pembrolizumab (21.4% ddMVAC; 8.3% GC), and PBC (14.3% ddMVAC and 21.5% GC). This real-world data from patients with aUC in Japan showed consistent OS patterns with avelumab maintenance across treatment subgroups vs. the overall population despite their inherent heterogeneity. Although patients were not resistant to PBC, 2L EV was more common than 2L PBC.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".